Biological Design Argument?

[prodigalson2011]

This presumes that the human mind is unable to apprehend non-physical reality. While it may be true that the senses provide access to physical reality, your conclusion that Mary could not “sense” the angel unless the angel were in time and space leaves out the possibility that the human mind can access non-spacial and non-temporal realities. Clearly, ideas or abstractions are not in space or time. You might claim these are not “real,” but surely that only means to you that they are non-physical, which begs the question of whether or not they are “real” in some other way.

Additionally, there is the question of whether an atemporal being can create temporal effects, e.g. apparitions.

 

[nmgauss]

Sensitivity to electromagnetic waves (radio waves, etc.) does not depend on the five senses. These kinds of waves are not based on matter, There are many people who have brain disturbances from exposure to radio waves. So where does this type of phenomenon fit in to our material vs. non-material dichotomy?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sensitivity to electromagnetic waves (radio waves, etc.) does not depend on the five senses. These kinds of waves are not based on matter, There are many people who have brain disturbances from exposure to radio waves. So where does this type of phenomenon fit in to our material vs. non-material dichotomy?

Hmmm. That might explain why I pee my pants every time I put something in the microwave… You have just saved me a great deal of embarrassment!

It may also show that we are not speaking of a dichotomy ay all, but more like a spectrum or perhaps something quite distinct from any representation we might concoct

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sensitivity to electromagnetic waves (radio waves, etc.) does not depend on the five senses. These kinds of waves are not based on matter, There are many people who have brain disturbances from exposure to radio waves. So where does this type of phenomenon fit in to our material vs. non-material dichotomy?

Hmmm. That might explain why I pee my pants every time I put something in the microwave. You have just saved me a great deal of embarrassment!

It may also show that we are not speaking of a dichotomy at all, but more like a spectrum or perhaps something quite distinct from any representation we might concoct.

 

[prodigalson2011]

rossum:

In light of previous discussions about the correspondence of our perceptions to reality, I thought you might enjoy this video: The McGurk Effect.

I encourage everyone else to watch it, too. Thought provoking!

 

[Aloysium]

rossum:

In light of previous discussions about the correspondence of our perceptions to reality, I thought you might enjoy this video: The McGurk Effect.

I encourage everyone else to watch it, too. Thought provoking!

bah

how did McGurk ever notice this?

 

[buffalo]

New Cornell Papers in:

• Section Two: Biological Information and Genetic Theory: Introductory Comments 203 http://www.worldscientific.com/temp...uilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngBiological Information and Genetic Theory: Introductory Comments [John C. Sanford](http://www.worldscientific.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Sanford%2C+J+C%29) DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_others02 [Abstract](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_others02) | [PDF (78 KB)](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_others02) 210 http://www.worldscientific.com/templates/jsp/_style2/_pagebuilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngNot Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information [Jonathan Wells](http://www.worldscientific.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Wells%2C+J%29) DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0009 [Abstract](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0009) | [PDF (171 KB)](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0009) 232 http://www.worldscientific.com/templates/jsp/_style2/_pagebuilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngCan Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? [Paul Gibson](http://www.worldscientific.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Gibson%2C+P%29), [John R. Baumgardner](http://www.worldscientific.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Baumgardner%2C+J+R%29), [Wesley H. Brewer](http://www.worldscientific.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Brewer%2C+W+H%29), [John C. Sanford](http://www.worldscientific.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Sanford%2C+J+C%29) DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0010 [Abstract](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0010) | [PDF (1600 KB)](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010) 264
  %between%

 

[buffalo]

http://www.worldscientific.com/temp...builder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngSelection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations
John C. Sanford, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0011
Abstract | PDF (1088 KB) 298
http://www.worldscientific.com/templates/jsp/_style2/_pagebuilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngUsing Numerical Simulation to Test the “Mutation-Count” Hypothesis
Wesley H. Brewer, John R. Baumgardner, John C. Sanford DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0012
Abstract | PDF (325 KB) 312
http://www.worldscientific.com/templates/jsp/_style2/_pagebuilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngCan Synergistic Epistasis Halt Mutation Accumulation? Results from Numerical Simulation
John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0013
Abstract | PDF (343 KB) 338
http://www.worldscientific.com/temp...der/_wspc/images/access_open.pngComputational Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite Selection
Chase W. Nelson, John C. Sanford DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0014
Abstract | PDF (401 KB) 369
http://www.worldscientific.com/temp...ilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngInformation Loss: Potential for Accelerating Natural Genetic Attenuation of RNA Viruses
Wesley H. Brewer, Franzine D. Smith, John C. Sanford DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0015
Abstract | PDF (222 KB) 385
http://www.worldscientific.com/temp...gebuilder/_wspc/images/access_open.pngDNA.EXE: A Sequence Comparison between the Human Genome and Computer Code
Josiah Seaman DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0016
Abstract | PDF (3904 KB) 402
http://www.worldscientific.com/temp...er/_wspc/images/access_open.pngBiocybernetics and Biosemiosis
Donald Johnson DOI: 10.1142/9789814508728_0017
Abstract | PDF (176 KB)

 

[nmgauss]

Buffalo:
Are there any cogent points you can glean from this bibliography? Since you have enough interest to cite this literature, I am hoping that you could read some of it and quote certain passages that would help us focus.

 

[nmgauss]

rossum:

In light of previous discussions about the correspondence of our perceptions to reality, I thought you might enjoy this video: The McGurk Effect.

I encourage everyone else to watch it, too. Thought provoking!

The differences between “father” and “bother” are distinct enough that I cannot understand why the McGurk Effect was ever described.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The differences between “father” and “bother” are distinct enough that I cannot understand why the McGurk Effect was ever described.

You’re missing the overarching principle. For example, the British Psychological Society published a study that examined the influence of the McGurk Effect on crime scene witnesses. The study concluded , “This is the first demonstration of the interaction of auditory and visual information for complex scenes. The scene is one of forensic importance and therefore the findings are of importance within the emerging field of earwitness testimony.”

And beyond that, the general point (in my bringing it into this thread) was that our senses are not as independent and, therefore, trustworthy as we might think. This is attested to not only by the McGurk Effect, but other sensory phenomena such as motion-induced blindness (which is the cause of the all too common exclamation of many who’ve just been involved in a car accident… “It came out of nowhere!”) Your brain can alter sensory information that it deems to be in conflict with other sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, or even delete it in cases of sensory overload.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo:
Are there any cogent points you can glean from this bibliography? Since you have enough interest to cite this literature, I am hoping that you could read some of it and quote certain passages that would help us focus.

There is a lot there. But a few important ones are: loss of genetic info despite selection not gain. We are devolving every generation.

Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information

Evidence for Fine-Tuning in the Standard Codon Table

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation

 

[nmgauss]

There is a lot there. But a few important ones are: loss of genetic info despite selection not gain. We are devolving every generation.

Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information

Evidence for Fine-Tuning in the Standard Codon Table

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation

These appear to be titles of articles. Are there any conclusions here that will throw light on the Biological Design Argument? If so, can you describe them briefly?

 

[buffalo]

These appear to be titles of articles. Are there any conclusions here that will throw light on the Biological Design Argument? If so, can you describe them briefly?

They are the titles as you point out. The titles themselves throw light on the argument.

 

[nmgauss]

They are the titles as you point out. The titles themselves throw light on the argument.

I would like to know any cogent points you have discovered in your reading. Is there any more information you can provide in addition to the titles?

 

[tonyrey]

Spiritual beings are not located in time or space.

Spiritual beings can communicate with human beings because we have a spiritual nature as well as a physical nature. If we didn’t we would be incapable of spiritual development.

Or do you believe spiritual development is composed solely of biological events?

No, but I do believe that physical development is composed solely of physical events. Evolution describes the origin of the physical human body. Abiogenesis describes the origin of physical life on earth.

Are spiritual development and physical development totally unrelated?

Your argument is nonsensical

Then your arrow cannot reach the target without teleportation.

Your argument still makes no sense.

You are barking up the wrong tree! This is a philosophy forum: the evidence for Design is the existence of purpose in the universe which is beyond the scope of science, restricted as it is to physical causes.

I would remind you that the title of this thread covers biological design. Biology is not beyond the scope of science. If you want to discuss philosophical design, then perhaps a different thread might be more suitable.

This still happens to be a philosophy forum. If you want to restrict the discussion to science you cannot discuss design which refers to purpose and is beyond the scope of science.

A logical error. It does not follow from the occurrence of random events that all events

are random.I have shown evidence that mutations are random. If you claim that there are non-random mutations, then it is up to you to provide evidence. Science works on inferential logic, which is why it is always open to new evidence. All the evidence so far shows that mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. Unless and until there is evidence of non-random mutations then science will continue to work with the evidence it has rather than with the evidence it might have in the future.

It still does not follow from the occurrence of random events that all events are random. Mutations are not the only type of events nor even the most significant because they occur within the framework of natural laws.

Moreover there is no reason why random events should not be the product of Design.

If a perfect designer wishes to hide, then why should we go against her wishes?
Irrelevant.

The topic is Design which is compatible with a minority of random events. **The occurrence of some random events does not imply that all events are random.
**

 

[buffalo]

I would like to know any cogent points you have discovered in your reading. Is there any more information you can provide in addition to the titles?

I have for years now. And right now I am just too tired…

 

[Aloysium]

You’re missing the overarching principle. For example, the British Psychological Society published a study that examined the influence of the McGurk Effect on crime scene witnesses. The study concluded , “This is the first demonstration of the interaction of auditory and visual information for complex scenes. The scene is one of forensic importance and therefore the findings are of importance within the emerging field of earwitness testimony.”

And beyond that, the general point (in my bringing it into this thread) was that our senses are not as independent and, therefore, trustworthy as we might think. This is attested to not only by the McGurk Effect, but other sensory phenomena such as motion-induced blindness (which is the cause of the all too common exclamation of many who’ve just been involved in a car accident… “It came out of nowhere!”) Your brain can alter sensory information that it deems to be in conflict with other sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, or even delete it in cases of sensory overload.

:twocents:

the brain/mind does not so much “alter sensory (name removed by moderator)ut”, as it “processes” as much “data” as it can to form a consistent representation of human reality.
Personally speaking, I have been becoming increasingly visually impaired for a few years. In spite of much of my vision crumbling into nothing, I think I can see. That is unless I have to focus on something. I can play video games, seeing my avatar confronting monsters etc; it is only when it doesn’t respond as it should that I realize I have no idea where the cursor is. As for things coming out nowhere, the problem is bikes; if I am crossing the street, the sound of a car seems to automatically trigger vigilance in my optic processing areas, cause I see it. Too many times when on an empty road, suddenly there’s a bike almost on top of me.

 

[rossum]

This still happens to be a philosophy forum. If you want to restrict the discussion to science you cannot discuss design which refers to purpose and is beyond the scope of science.

If you place design at the level of cosmology, say at the Big Bang, then nothing about the science of biology needs to be changed. Both evolution and abiogenesis remain exactly as they are now. Since this thread is specifically about biology and design, then any cosmological design is outside the scope of this particular thread.

It still does not follow from the occurrence of random events that all events are random.

I have never said that they are. Mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. This has been shown by experiment. If you have any evidence that there are situations in which mutations are not random with respect to their effect on the phenotype, then please show us the evidence.

We already know that the causes of mutations, not their effects, may not be random. A dose of radiation can cause mutations as can some mutagenic chemicals.

Cosmology is not biology. While there may be a case for cosmological design, I have never seen a good case for specifically biological design, apart from design by humans. I have never seen evidence for a non-human biological designer.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Cosmology is not biology. While there may be a case for cosmological design, I have never seen a good case for specifically biological design, apart from design by humans. I have never seen evidence for a non-human biological designer.

rossum

There are at least two cases provided by Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell. Whether or not you consider them good does not mean they can be dismissed without good reason - which you haven’t ever provided.

1. The particular arrangement of at least 120 amino acids to form a minimally functional protein chain exceeds the UPB and therefore could not have been a chance event.
2. The arrangement of the four nucleic bases {adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), thymine (T)} along the spine of the DNA molecule to form genetic code has no biochemical or physical explanation for their ordering along the spine. Yet this is a very basic and key requirement for life and evidence that a designer is involved since no “natural” explanation exists. Until a compelling physical or chemical explanation can be offered, design is an open option.